Player Stats

Dadrian Taylor College Stats

Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.

Stat Footprint

Career production snapshot

Tackles
115
TFL
12.5
Sacks
3.5
QB hurries
4
Passes defended
8
Touchdowns
6

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2018 Regular SeasonUTSA712-0-2011.8
2019 Regular SeasonUTSA59-0--211.9
2020 Regular SeasonUTSA8173012036.6
2021 Regular SeasonUTSA12435.52.52-257.3
2022 PostseasonUTSA11410--054.1
2022 Regular SeasonUTSA11303114254.1

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2021 Regular Season

UTSA paired 11 primary output with 24.1 efficiency.

Supporting note

2022 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 22.9 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2022 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: North Texas

Win with 4.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.

Analysis workspace

Season Workbench

Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.

Season Explorer

Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.

2022 Postseason · UTSA

Games

11

Havoc Plays / G

1

Efficiency

22.9

Usage

4.7

Consistency

54.5

Best Game by takeover score

North Texas

Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.

Active game

Hover over a point

Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.

Game-by-Game Trend

Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.

1234567891011

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Troy: 1. Houston: 1. Army: 0. Middle Tennessee: 1. Western Kentucky: 0. Florida International: 0.5. North Texas: 4.5. UAB: 0. Louisiana Tech: 1. Rice: 1. UTEP: 1

Volume vs Efficiency

Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.

Low volumeHigh quality

High volumeHigh quality

Low volumeLower quality

High volumeLower quality

Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.

Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Troy: 4 by 26.7. Houston: 10 by 51.7. Middle Tennessee: 2 by 18.3. Western Kentucky: 2 by 8.3. Florida International: 2 by 13.3. North Texas: 3 by 57.5. UAB: 5 by 20.8. Louisiana Tech: 1 by 14.2. Rice: 2 by 18.3. UTEP: 3 by 22.5

Split Comparison

Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.

Wins1 · Games = 9 · +0 vs Losses
Losses1 · Games = 2 · +0 vs Wins